Return to nonfamous.com index page

July 29, 2004

It's been a busy week

So I guess I missed this amusing story about USA Today's decision not to run a particularly stupid piece by Ann Coulter on the Democratic Convention. Human Events Online published the squashed piece, along with the editorial comments from USA Today, which tend to be along the lines of "I don't get it," and "Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic? If so, you sure lost me." The comments definitely make the piece more readable. In addition to the usual Ann Coulter tirade of unreasoned conservatism, the article is really just weird and sort of gives one the impression that Coulter isn't actually at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, but maybe traveling in time back to the 1968 one. For example, following up on her assertion that all of the "pretty girls" at the convention are actually conservative infiltrators, she asserts:

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it’s because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it’s no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

I'm not actually sure what to make of this paragraph. Is this to say that all of the democratic women are midwestern granola types? Isn't that what corn-fed implies--from the cornbelt? So then what happened to all the East Coast liberal elitists her ilk is always accusing the left of using to fill it ranks? And "hippie chick pie wagon"? I'm not sure I can even begin to parse that one. Pie wagon? So we've got a whole bunch of tye-dye wearing, unwashed, midwesterners who showed up driving antique Fords? Because I'm not seeing much of that in the images from the current party in Boston.

In response to USA Today's decision not to run the piece, Coulter said, Apparently USA Today doesn’t like my ‘tone,’ humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter.”

Or perhaps they thought they were getting a columnist who could write a somewhat controversial, snappy, and amusing opinion piece. I would argue that they were somewhat misguided in believing Ann could deliver on that promise, but I'm sure they were not expecting a piece that sounds like it was generated by one of those automated applications that piece together strings of keywords and phrases to assemble an opinion piece: it uses plenty of the right words, but still doesn't make any sense.


Posted by paulette at July 29, 2004 11:14 AM | TrackBack
Comment spammers: see our Unauthorized Advertising Policy and rates
Comments

Because I believe that Ann Coulter couldn't write her way out of a paper sack, the inability to deliver a decent piece to her editor doesn't really surprise me. The fact that she believes herself among the "pretty girls" leaves me gobsmacked. I can only guess that Rush slipped her a lifetime supply of Oxycontin and she is hallucinating.

Posted by: terry on July 29, 2004 05:46 PM
Post a comment